Well if we aren't going for other targets, then something's gone awfully wrong. But a lot has gone awfully wrong anyway.

I have found no official confirmation from AVilla that they have signed this bloke.

Buendia has the same agent as Martinez according to Charles Watts. Both are apparently with the Argentina team for the WC qualifiers.

I did like the idea of Buendia but one take I saw on Twitter is that at £38m that is a lot of money, and considering most of Europe is stone cold broke there will be much better deals out there this summer. Players are going to be signed for half the price clubs were quoted only 12 months ago. The question is whether we think those in charge of our transfers are capable of making it work

The assumption here that Buendia is joining Aston Villa seems based, or at least began with, Darren’s post 530344 on page 13259. He said he “Preferred Ødegaard anyway.” As I clarified yesterday, so did I. Myself, I was struggling to feel excited about spending a lot of money on a player who has been around a while (he’s 24) and the biggest clubs who have put him in their teams are Getafe (who after giving him two years in their side sent him on loan to a third tier Spanish outfit I’d never heard of before), and poxy Norwich bloody City. Especially if he could possibly end up competing for Saka’s place.

Darren also provided a link to a tweet by someone called Paddy Davitt who said words to the effect that Buendia to Villa was a done deal and should be confirmed in the next day or twenty four hours.

Now I don’t spend much time on Twitter and had never heard of this Paddy Davitt before. The question that needs addressing is whether he’s a reliable source. I haven’t got the faintest idea. Maybe Darren knows, or someone else here?

Apparently Buendia already had a medical while in currently in Argentina.
Several reports from the Guardian, NBC Sports, Goal, state varying amounts from £30M/£32M plus with add-ons amounting to £40M to £56M total.
That's some deal.

I would have liked to have seen Buendia arrive as he seems like a rare mix of goals and assists. However, I don’t know the extent of our interest in him so I can’t say whether we’ve screwed up or not.

If he was not top of our list all I can say is that I hope we are able to secure our top target and are not messing around waiting for Madrid to change their mind on Ødegaard.

Fingers crossed that for once we have a shrewd plan in place and can execute it accordingly.

Arseblog saying we are now turning our attention to 27 yo Rodrigo De Paul. Never heard of him although people are saying he is in demand. Always worry about players who have never played in the EPL. They don’t always have a good first or second season. Partey was hardly a success. Pépé taken 2 years. And many like Mustafi, SK and Torriera never really get there.

Yeah, I think he would've been a fine addition but it's too early for despair over missing a player who only has one year in the PL behind him. If we don't manage to get a creative attacking midfielder at all this summer then that would be the time to rue missing out on Buendia.

There is a weird perception that Arsenal are now some sort of mid table club, whose status is on the level of Everton, Leeds or Aston Villa. That might be true when looking at this seasons league table in isolation, but I very much doubt that players see us that way. In our worst season in decades we still finished ahead of them all, and while Villa and Leeds have been in the Championship for years, Arsenal has had consistent European football for more than two decades. There's no doubt in my mind we can still attract very good players, it's all about identifying the right ones.

Linked with Wolves Ruben Neves for £35m.

A couple of seasons ago when Wolves were flying he was brilliant but I think his stock had fallen a bit recently. Very good player technically but a bit slow and £35m seems at least £10m too much in the current market.

And we’re rumoured to be selling Xhaka for half that price. Doesn’t seem like a significant upgrade.
Lack of pace, power and mobility is killing us in so many positions so we can’t keep signing players without those attributes.

Leicester signing Edouard for £15m. Add the signing of Soumare for £20m and that’s two very good deals for them. Smart quick business by a club who has made a habit of being very very clever in the transfer market. Selling a big name, reinvesting and taking a step forward every time

Hi Rich,

Remarkable business at great prices. If both players work out they could look a steal by the end of next season.

As someone else said, the very definition of outsmarting the market.

I said a few weeks ago and will repeat it. Let's recruit the person or persons who do the scouting and deals for Leicester.

Many thought were a one off myself included. They are a big club on the pitch without the global fanbase.

If I was a Norwich fan, pleased to be back in the Premiership, I'd be a bit cheesed off to see my club selling one of the guys who made promotion possible. We know it is all about the money, but selling a key player to a team that had in recent times, like Norwich, been in the Championship or in the Premiership relegation zone does not speak of much ambition?

I'm just not convinced by the Neves potential transfer. Wolves have got a bit of a stale squad right now, and have a new boss coming in who wants to reshape the team, they will be looking for big money from a saleable asset. Neves and Traore are probably top of that list. I just think there are much more dynamic midfielders in the league. Neves strikes me as a metronome type player - which is not to be underated but I think we need more energy and speed from our midfield. I prefer Bissouma even though I am not convinced he's the ideal partner for Partey.

There seems to be a lot of interest in Saliba, Newcastle now said to want him on loan. I don't have a huge problem loaning him until he's ready but his value on his contract will be running down and I doubt we've done anything so far that would make him want to sign an extension. He was one of the best CB in France for his loan last year. If we hadn't already signed him his performances would probably be of the sort which would be alerting our scouts who are on the look out for a right sided young CB with pace, passing ability and physical presence.
At the very least we should be making proper money from the loan deals.

We're taking Arteta's word for it that he's not ready. I trust Arteta in pretty much everything else but a few things and Saliba is one of them. I want to see Saliba in an Arsenal shirt play a couple of times before I'm convinced he's not ready. He may not be but I'm no longer taking anyone's word for it. He could be playing against Hibernian and other friendlies for one. Saliba must have parked in his reserved parking spot. His exclusion is a head scratcher.

Neves is an interesting one. On paper, it seems like replacing Xhaka with him is a sideway move at best. They have some of the same flaws - lack of mobility and speed, and they aren't great at beating the press. Neves doesn't have a tendency to make the mistakes Xhaka does, but on the other hand his passing is a lot more conservative and he isn't as much of a physical presence. On the other hand, Neves has been playing in a much more rigid, defensive minded formation at Wolves, so there is a possibility he'll show more ability when given the chance in a more attack minded team (which is at least what Arsenal are trying to be). Always thought he was a good player at least.

Ban loan transfers

Would Make football a whole lot better.

That’s of course a worry even if he starts playing and does well enough to retain his place. I can’t help wondering if Arsenal have severely compromised any affinity Saliba ever had with the club, not only to the extent that he regrets joining us but also increasing his eagerness to spend his career elsewhere?

Maybe we didn't pay the add ons for the agent?

https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/57371870

Well I find this shocking and somewhat disgraceful.

You associate with Chelsea supporters ?

Agree. 100%

Gets my vote too.

I’ve little or no doubt that many players would be against banning loans. His loan to Newcastle has certainly benefited Willock, as well as Newcastle. Probably Arsenal whether it convinces Arteta to keep him, or if not sell him for a higher transfer fee than would have been the case before the loan. Exactly the same applies to Lingard, with West Ham instead of Newcastle and Manchester United instead of Arsenal. There will be countless other cases where it’s been beneficial all round.

I’m not a huge fan of the loan system. But I’m not convinced it’s all bad. Might there be an argument for modifying it, like having formal limits on the number of players that clubs can have on loan and send out on loan?

Except that if we didn’t have Ceballos and Ødegaard on loan then Willock would have had a better chance to shine with us.

Hi ltg,

Did any club above us in the PL sign a player on loan, especially without an option to buy?

Neves -5 goals and 1 assist for the season. Never been much of a scorer, even in Portugal. About slow as Xhaka and overpriced. This would not be an improvement. Must be a wind up. We surely aren’t at this level. Hold on he does have nice hairdo. Very neat. That’s funny when I typed it autocorrect changed Neves to never.

Tottenham / Bale ?

A blast from the past. Wonderful player for us. https://www.legendspublishing.net/produ ... wjw4jXrVBI

Ceballos made a significant contribution to us winning the FA Cup last season. Would we have won it with Willock instead of him? I’m not convinced. He was poor this season but because of his contribution to the FA Cup win, I see the Ceballos loan signing as a positive.

As I do Ødegaard’s. An outstanding player. Shame we couldn’t keep him, assuming we don’t. But at least we had him for a bit, and I’m glad we did.

Yep. Two academy players in Willock and AMN sent out on loan while we had two Real Madrid players in the squad. Another one of our own, Emile Smith Rowe, whose introduction to the team and link-up with Saka made a big difference, got shunted out to the wing to make way for Ødegaard. Ødegaard himself has now been on loan for 4 seasons. He has played 8 games for Real Madrid. It's a load of nonsense.

I'd love to have this team with the players in their prime.

LTG has pointed out Bale at Tottenham. But socrates, perhaps after more than ten years of Stan’s ownership we’re no longer as big a club as you still appear to think? Just a question.

My point wasn’t really about the value of the contributions but more a response to your suggestion that Willock would be thinking that loans are a good thing. It’s possible that he might not.

In any event I think that they are fundamentally wrong - at whatever level of the game. They are a major distortion.

My guess is that Willock would. He was with us when we won the FA Cup, and as an unused substitute won a cup winner’s medal. He just wasn’t as good as Ceballos at the time, who had a damn fine match in the final.

Willock has benefited from his loan to Newcastle this season, as have both clubs. Willock’s loan helped him (his reputation), Newcastle (they avoided relegation) and Arsenal (whether his form there makes Arteta decide to keep him or we sell him for a higher fee than we’d have got without his going on loan).

The same points can be made about Lingard’s loan from Manchester United to West Ham. Different players and different clubs, but a very similar outcome. I think both cases show loans can work well for everyone.

When I first got into football as a fan, I thought the way the leagues were set up was pure genius. Relegation and promotion. As you know we have a fixed number of teams. It has occasionally made some teams stagnant. The Los Angeles Clippers, an NBA team, had owner who didn't try to improve the team at all. His share of the NBA money was about 20 million and he used the club to finance real estate deals, his primary source of income. The 20 million was coming to him no matter where they stood and the Clippers for years were awful because the owner refused to invest in a winning club.

That said, I didn't like the loan system when I first learned of it because I thought there was so much room for abuse. Loans can help a club, either club on each side of the loan, but I was never comfortable with the system. I felt a team should live and die by its own players.

If we are going to have the loan system, my personal preference is loans only to another league below (or even up if they can swing it). A loaned player in the same league never sat well with me. And it benefits the big clubs inherently because they have best talent. That loaned player helps them beat their rivals but doesn't have to play them. And if that loaned player is a key player (Lingard as example), that key player puts that team off balance when they play you.

The debate for greatest footballer ever, seems to be Messi vs Maradona, with Pele and Ronaldo increasingly relegated to being in the conversation but not down to the final two.

That said, who is the greatest European player? Ronaldo may have a fairly good claim to the title. Van Basten, Cruyff, Best, Zidane, Beckenbauer, Puskas, several others are in contention, but I think its an interesting debate.

It may come down Ronaldo vs Zidane. But I think the debate will depend on the age of the person.